“The government fools you into believing that you are independent and free. In this way you are fooled and duped every day of your life. But how does it happen that you didn’t think of it before? How is it that most other people don’t see it, either?
It is because you and every one else are lied to about this all the time, from your earliest childhood. You are told to be honest, while you are being robbed all your life.
You are commanded to respect the law, while the law protects the capitalist who is robbing you.
You are taught that killing is wrong, while the government hangs and electrocutes people and slaughters them in war.
You are told to obey the law and government, though law and government stand for robbery and murder.
Thus all through life you are lied to, fooled, and deceived, so that it will be easier to make profits out of you, to exploit you.
Because it is not only the employer and the capitalist who make profits out of you. The government, the church, tend the school - they all live on your labor.
You support them all. That is why all of them teach you to be content with your lot and behave yourself.”
Cloned from the cells of Aerith Gainsborough, Gaea III is a failed attempt to recreate the skills and abilities exhibited in the last remaining Cetra. She lacks any of the skills and intuition of the Gaea II Original (also called Gaea II Prime, aka Aerith Gainsborough,) which is theorized to be due to the inclusion of Jenova cells into the project. Professor Hojo considers the project a success, unlike the rest of Shinra Inc.
Gaea III is a near perfect replica of Aerith Gainsborough in appearance, although over time the degradation and erratic nature of the Jenova cells add a discoloration to the hair and eyes, as is often present in Jenova clones. She bears a tattoo marked GAEA III on her inner left wrist, and her movements and expressions can seem odd or unsettling, especially to those familiar with the Gaea II Original.
However, in personality, Gaea III exhibits several traits not present in the Prime, namely hypersexuality (added by Hojo to increase odds of breeding) and obsessive tendencies, and a desperate need for attention and approval. She is also noted to have severe mood swings, coupled with a vicious violent streak and a physical hardiness often exhibited in Jenova clones.
Gaea III is aware she is not the Original, and often shows tension or distress when confronted with this, and also exhibiting aggression or hostilty at the mention of Gaea II Prime. While lacking the connections and skills of the original, she feels these losses keenly and is constantly seeking ways to fill the missing pieces.
Transgender Ideology Explained in Pseudo-Leftist and Pseudo-Radical Language: The Mental Gymnastics of “Trans Women Are Women”
In early 2015, I was a genderist. Eventually, my asking for help from a pro-trans ideology woman I admired to understand some things about trans ideology I had qualms with and couldn’t quite wrap my head around caused me to finally wake up to the cult that is mainstream contemporary trans ideology.
The woman who I admired and asked for an explanation from was tumblr user medicine/thug, now known as cocobandicoot. Unfortunately, I do not have the questions I sent her, but I did manage to find her replies in my inbox.
As of now, I’m too lazy to dissect every message of hers for its bullshit, so I will instead just share it here without much commentary, so we can all lament at the atrocity that is this woman using leftist language to justify trans ideology and the mental gymnastics it takes to think “trans women” are women.
EDIT: I have now added my own commentary directed at cocobandicoot.
ANOTHER EDIT: I changed some instances where I wrote “female sex class” to “women” because in one of her messages cocobandicoot said “trans women” form their own class of women without uteruses, ovaries, and vaginas. That is bullshit too, of course, but I don’t want her to use that one slip-up against all of my points.
“Woman” has absolutely never meant and never will mean “males with sex dysphoria and females without sex dysphoria who identify as women”. “Woman” has always meant adult human female. Humans are sexually dimorphic, and every language has/had a word for man and woman meaning as it does today: a human male or a human female. Before patriarchy, this was still the case.
It is clear that you are trying to assert this simply because you say so, and the fact that you are trying to justify your point as being valid in terms of class analysis is laughable.
You do not understand materialism, and the fact that you are using leftist language to try and reason out a way to explain how “trans women”/men with a specific mental illness (sex dysphoria) are classed as women reveals your ignorance about this. You are partaking in revisionism in its most blatant form.
The Marxist left finds itself confronted by three insidious big lies that threaten the revolutionary and emancipatory foundation of the Marxist project, all related to undermining women’s liberation; they are:
1. Transwomen are women.
2. Sex work is work.
3. Feminism is bourgeois.
Misogyny in its many forms has long been a challenge for the left; not just the misogyny of the reactionary right, but misogyny coming from within the left itself. But it has not been until recently that this leftist misogyny has sought to portray itself as being inherently progressive. By engaging in revisionism of the most blatant kind, reactionary elements within the left have managed to posit themselves as the agents of progress. Much has already been written about the harms caused by these three lies, but no attempt has yet to be made to debunk them from a solidly Marxist standpoint. That is what we are out to accomplish here; to demonstrate definitively that these big lies are not just regressive, but inherently revisionist and anti-Marxist to the core.
The first of these three big lies, “Transwomen are women”, might well be the most damaging, because it directly contradicts the heart of the Marxist method: dialectical materialism. There are two main definitions used by proponents of transgenderism to explain their narrative. The first is that gender is an identity; the state of being a man or a woman (or any one of the other numerous “gender identities”) stems not from biological sex (to the extent that transactivists acknowledge the existence of biological sex), but from an internal identity, i.e. personal feelings, personal consciousness. The second definition says that transpeople are not really the sex they physically are, but the sex they say they are, because they really have “male” or “female” brains. Both of these definitions are rooted in the personal, not the material. One of the patron saints of queer theory, Judith Butler, says:
“It’s one thing to say that gender is performed and that is a little different from saying gender is performative. When we say gender is performed we usually mean that we’ve taken on a role or we’re acting in some way and that our acting or our role-playing is crucial to the gender that we are and the gender that we present to the world. To say that gender is performative is a little different because for something to be performative means that it produces a series of effects. We act and walk and speak and talk in ways that consolidate an impression of being a man or being a woman.”
Though queer theory is a postmodernist philosophy, its roots go far deeper than just postmodernism; rather, this statement of Butler’s is an example of the dialectics of idealism. Marxism, as a philosophy, was formed in reaction to the idealist dialectics of the Young Hegelians. The dialects of idealism posit that reality flows from consciousness. Marx, on the other hand, argued “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.” That is, it is not our thoughts that shape material reality, but material reality that shapes our thoughts. In fact, Marx’s first major work, The German Ideology, is exclusively dedicated to explaining this.
So what is the materialist definition of gender? And how does the embrace of the idealist definition under the guise of Marxism harm the Marxist aim of women’s liberation? The foundational Marxist text dealing with the oppression of women is Engels’ The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State. According to Engels, while there has always existed a sexual division of labor in human society, it is not until the rise of private property that this division becomes hierarchical. Before the rise of private property, society was organized under what was called “mother right”, i.e. a person’s family is traced through their mother, given the difficulty of identifying with certainty the father in primitive communist society. But because private property grew out of male labor, and became concentrated in male hands, mother right gave way to “father right”. In order to bequeath his property to his son, the father needed to know with certainty who his sons were. This meant controlling the reproductive labor of the female sex, and its subordination to male supremacy; thus the advent of patriarchy. In Chapter II of Origin of Family Engels calls the overthrow of mother-right “…the world historical defeat of the female sex. The man took command in the home also; the woman was degraded and reduced to servitude, she became the slave of his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children.”Note that Engels here is dealing with sex, with biology. Women are not oppressed because of some abstract gender identity, but because of their sex. Class society and patriarchy, the two of which exist in a symbiosis, need to control women’s reproductive labor to sustain themselves. To put it more bluntly, they need to control the means of reproduction. Thus, women’s oppression has its origin in material reality.
But we have not yet dealt with the concept of gender. In the current queer theory dominated discourse, sex and gender are increasingly become conflated to the point that they are being used as synonyms for one another. Engels analysis of patriarchy is in many ways incomplete, but it forms the basis of future materialist explorations of sex and gender. The second-wave feminists who developed much of the thought around gender did not revise these fundamentals, but expanded on them, the opposite of what today’s revisionists are doing. Gender, according to the radical feminist Rebecca Reilly-Cooper, is “the value system that prescribes and proscribes forms of behaviour and appearance for members of the different sex classes, and that assigns superior value to one sex class at the expense of the other.”Gender is therefore not the same thing as biological sex, but a kind of parasite grafted on top of biological sex to maintain the current sexual hierarchy, and ensure continued male control over reproductive labor. Gender non-conforming, as well as homosexual, men and women are therefore “exiled” from their gender community not because of some abstract identity, but because they do not fulfill their proscribed functions as members of their sex class; they are essentially class traitors.
Thus, the fact that you see the persecution of “trans women”/males with sex dysphoria as evidence as to how they are women is, again, laughable. In doing so, you are partaking in a kind of essentialism that posits women as being defined by their oppression. What makes your “analysis” even more poorly done is the fact that you seem to think that the persecution of “trans women” is anything like actual misogyny.
But to reiterate, none of this has to do with identity, but with the material structuring of class society…
While transactivists have started to turn against the biomedical explanation for transgenderism, it is very much alive and well in the medical and psychological community. Victorian-era theories about “brain sex” that would have earned the ire of Marx and Engels are now making a comeback. At best, these theories are chimerical pseudoscience which have not even come close to being conclusively proven in any legitimate scientific study. The standards by which gender dysphoria is diagnosed falls back on the constructed tropes of masculinity and femininity already discussed. Such theories risk misconstruing gender roles as being rooted in nature as opposed to constructions that reinforce ruling class control. Rather than being seen as the disease, dysphoria should be seen as the symptom of the sexual hierarchy. The pressures of gendered socialization are ubiquitous, and begin at birth. Very often we are not aware of the subtle forms socialization exerts upon us. For those who reject this socialization, it follows that they would experience levels of extreme discomfort and anguish. Gendered socialization is not just some abstract phenomena, but is, again, literally grafted onto us. Under this system of socialization, the penis becomes more than just the male sex organ, but the symbol of male aggression and supremacy, in the same way the vagina becomes the symbol of female inferiority and subjugation. Sensitive individuals who struggle against this socialization often hate their bodies, but not because their bodies are somehow “wrong”, but because of what they are drilled into believing their bodies are. What they suffer from is the inability to tear away the curtain that has been placed in front of material reality and to see reality in an objective manner. The fields of medical and psychological science are not immune from the influence of the ruling class. This is especially the case in the world of psychology, where a method of analysis is employed that isolates the individual from the wider society around them, preferring to view internal struggle as the result of some defect as opposed to the result of material and social forces exerted on the individual.
While capitalism has broken down certain elements of patriarchy, and allowed for women to make some gains, it has not dismantled patriarchy completely. Capitalism, being a class system, still needs to retain control of the means of reproduction. For example, laws that restrict access to abortion and contraceptives, while having negative repercussions for all women, have the most negative impact on poor, working-class women. These laws may be cloaked in the terminology of moralism, but have a far more base logic; they ensure the continued production of future proletarians for the benefit of the capitalist machine.
By shifting the definition of “woman” away from a materialist one to an idealistic one, we lose the ability to define and fight the causes of women’s oppression. In its most extreme form it erases women as a class, and makes it impossible to talk about patriarchy as an existing force. Why, then, are Marxists, who are supposed to be dialectical materialists embracing a set of ideas the very opposite of dialectical materialism? To answer this, we need to look at the nature of patriarchy; it is a system that predates capitalism. As already stated above, patriarchy and class exist in a symbiosis with one another. The one cannot be eliminated without the elimination of the other. Overthrowing capitalism is not the same as overthrowing class. As Mao pointed out, class dynamics still exist in the socialist society, and require continuous vigilance and combat on the part of revolutionaries. This is why many socialist states still restricted women’s rights to certain degrees, such as the draconian anti-abortion laws of Ceausescu’s Romania. All males benefit in some way from patriarchy, even males in a socialist society. It therefore follows that socialist males fighting capitalism also benefit from patriarchy. While men and women may be in solidarity with one another as workers, working class men also belong to the male sex class, a class that predates the existence of the modern working class. Class allegiances run deep. This is why so many socialist and “feminist” men are quick to defend and even endorse the violent language and actions perpetrated by some gender non-conforming men against the female sex class, regardless of how these gender non-conforming men identify themselves. This is not to deny that gender non-conforming men are discriminated against, and face harassment and violence themselves, but even as exiles from the male sex-class, they still benefit from some of the privileges awarded to this sex class. Note that I do not use privilege in the manner it’s currently used by the regressive left, i.e. as some abstract notion that needs to be “checked”. Rather, it is an actually existing force that must be combated, just as white revolutionaries must actively combat white supremacy, and first world revolutionaries must actively combat “their” state’s imperialism… it is possible to defend gender non-conforming people without embracing misogynistic pseudoscience and revisionism.
Women are not just oppressed, but thoroughly exploited. Working class women make up what is possibly the most thoroughly exploited section of human society. By embracing philosophies that not only erase their ability to define and explain their exploitation, but also deny them the agency to organize as a revolutionary class, these “Marxists” have proven that they are in direct contradiction to Marxist philosophy and ideas. They are engaging in revisionism.
Female socialization starts from birth and sex dysphoria does not. Sex dysphoria is when males think they are “supposed” to have female bodies; thus, men with sex dysphoria are very much aware of the fact they have male bodies, they are not under the impression that they are actually biologically female. So no, they are not female socialized, and males being socialized to see themselves as superior beings is not being “misdirected” at “trans women”. If a “trans woman” actually thinks he is biologically female, that is a delusion, not a symptom of sex dysphoria.
Speaking of delusions, the only mental illness in which it is encouraged to support the delusions of the afflicted is now sex dysphoria, thanks to people like you who think it is impossible to acknowledge that “trans women” are not women without being complicit in the murder of “trans women”. Affirming someone’s delusions does not help the mentally ill, this is obvious when it comes to illnesses like psychosis, but apparently to not affirm the fantasies of transgender people is “violence”.
“I’m supposed to have a vagina, therefore I am a woman, and the fact that I am being raised to be violent sexually, physically, and emotionally towards women is made null by the fact that I am supposedly adopting the messages being directly socialized to actual females like my sister, and thus am being indirectly female socialized… this is trans female socialization,” …Yeah, no, that’s not how female socialization fucking works.
And if “trans women” were really female socialized, an innumerable amount of them would not commit male-pattern violence, like raping and murdering women and children and attempting to forcibly impregnate them.
Your attempts at justifying calling trans women’s penises “clits” make me fucking sick. That is completely biologically nonsensical and this is cotton ceiling rhetoric. Clitorises are not analogous to penises; women do not have urethras in their clits and it is not meant for reproduction, unlike penises which is where men feel sexual pleasure, piss out of, and inseminate women with.
Now about you partaking in cotton ceiling rhetoric… Let’s look at a post you made awhile back.
on a serious note if a “progressive” person is telling you that you must not have any sexual boundaries whatsoever about genitals, they are either manipulating you or they are being coerced into promoting an aspect of r*pe culture from their peers. i’m not gon disclose my tragic emo backstory but run in the opposite direction if you see this regardless of what your gender is.
“Sexual boundaries”, eh? “Sexual boundaries” is pro-trans ideology people’s nifty term for “sexual orientation”, and of course cotton ceiling advocates/anti-lesbian rape advocates think “sexual boundaries” relating to sex are bigoted, violent, and exclusionary. A lesbian (female homosexual) not wanting to sexually interact with male genitals/penises is not a “boundary” because penises were out of the question in the fucking first place. It was and never will be an option.
You promoting the idea that penis can be female is cotton ceiling rhetoric and apologia, and while you stop short of being a cotton ceiling advocate and are in fact a victim of cotton ceiling rhetoric/rape culture due to your heavily implied rape by a “trans woman” yourself, you are still partaking in the same rape culture that you were victimized by, and are doing a gross disservice to both yourself and other victims, especially victims who see cotton ceiling rhetoric for what it is and call it out. I truly believe that you will not be able to begin to heal from your trauma until you stop skirting around the reality that a man raped you, a lesbian, with his penis, not his “clit”.
Throughout your messages, you mention having most of your conclusions being drawn by “trans women”, whom you relied on to understand how they are women. It reminded me a lot of this post by theradicalresistance:
I don’t believe those liberal/queer feminist women who support the transgender agenda and trans women… blindly actually believe themselves trans women are women just like any woman (as in: there is no difference whatsoever). Why? The biggest clue is the way they treat them with such utter care and consideration, such total subserviantness and submission. They would never treat actual women like that. These are women who silence and demonize vulnerable and traumatized women in prostitution who speak up about the industry; women who dehumanize and belittle girls and women facing female genital mutilation or abortion bans; women who claim violence against women can be “empowering” and use slurs against other women who don’t agree with them. They don’t treat trans women like women. They treat them like men: with utter subserviantness and submission.
I am not really going to comment here because this message was mostly just about your own personal struggles and I have already said enough as to explain why “trans women” are not women.
In conclusion to your whole set of messages, though, I must reiterate what I said in the beginning: your idea of “trans women” being female socialized and thus women because of their apparent magical brain receptions is just “brain sex” rhetoric twisted a little bit and sprinkled with incorrectly used leftist language, and brain sex is not real.
He built up the Crow Club and worked to open a new one. He made threats of violence and made good on them when necessary. He created opportunity and money where there had been none.
If he made sure to keep track of the weather on the seas, if he found himself staring at the windowsill in his office from time to time, if he walked the pier every night before heading back to the Slat, then it was only to keep track of business or to work out some plan in his head or to know how best to dupe the tourists that were disembarking.
His days were filled with commerce and cruelty, his mind too crowded with profits and planning to think of much else.
At night, though, his body betrayed him.
His dreams were filled with glimpses of Inej - her dark hair falling across her face, her eyes staring up at him in the moonlight, her hand sliding beneath his own. It was never the entirety of her - only fleeting slivers of memories, as though he were seeing her through the gaps in a fence.
He would wake, sweating and breathless and embittered, and think - at least let me have all of her in my dreams. He might never know the feel of her in his arms in his waking life, but to never know it in his dreams, too, was a more desperate, hopeless kind of ache.
On those nights, he could almost accept that the gods existed beyond some faithful’s imagination. He could believe they were real and had finally found a punishment cruel enough for the bastard of a boy called Dirtyhands.
She sat down to write the first letter two weeks after she had departed from her berth in Ketterdam. In the morning she would say goodbye to her parents and the Ravka shoreline.
She sat in the captain’s cabin, her lamp turned down low to keep from bothering the sleeping form of her parents a few feet away. She stared at the piece of paper before her, hand poised above the emptiness, and hesitated.
How should she start? Dear Kaz? Hello, Kaz? Perhaps forego a greeting at all and just begin. She smiled. That’s what Kaz would do, his mind too quick and emotions too bothersome a thing to bother with formal greetings.
She shook her head at herself, scoffing at the useless, ridiculous thoughts chasing one another in her brain.
She wrote his name at the top of the sheet and stopped. Wondered how to begin.
It wasn’t as though she and Kaz had never spoken casually, but it had always began and couched in terms of a job - where they were headed, what they were doing, why he needed a certain bit of information. He was never one to ask how her day had been or what she had planned for the night. Although perhaps he’d never needed, then - her days and nights had almost always involved being with him.
She set her pen down and rolled her shoulders, easing the tension from her body. She sighed quietly, then started when she heard her father speak.
“Think of all the times you almost turned to him to speak something on your mind. Imagine all the things you wanted to say. Write those things down.”
She turned her head to face him, a shy, almost embarrassed look on her face.
“How do you know who I’m writing to?”
Her father sat up and laughed as he shook his head at her, a soft look coming into his eyes.
“Who else, Inej, if not the boy who brought us to you?”
Even now, those words - the simple truth behind them - still threw her off balance.
Or perhaps righted a world that had been long knocked askew.
She slipped off the chair and walked silently over to the bed, sat next to him and laid her head on his shoulder. He wrapped his arm around her and she sank into his warmth, into a dream that she’d had a thousand times over, a dream that was no longer just a dream.
“You could come back with us, Inej,” her father murmured after a long moment. “There’s still a place for you among the caravans. You would have a full belly and an open road once again.”
During the famous Day of the Dupes, as Marie de Medici demanded his son to choose between his First Minister and herself, Louis left the room storming. Richelieu, persuaded he was doomed, plunged into a fit of fever and cripling anxiety.
Only twelve hours later, as Marie de Medici was already celebrating her victory, Louis called Richelieu back, alone. The Cardinal arrived, devastated and crying, unable to even defend himself.
Against all odds, Louis welcomed and embraced him, whispering the famous saying :
Continuez à me servir comme vous l’avez fait, et je vous maintiendrai contre ceux qui ont juré votre perte.
(Keep on serving me as you’ve always done, and I will maintain you, in spite of those who swore your downfall.)
If there is something more, something weird, in that drawing, I swear I was up to no good.
A “trans girl” saying that he would put tampons up his ass… to simulate periods? And I think I even remember him saying that it made him aroused… What the fuck.
“Gender”/being a woman or girl or man or boy defined as a fucking feeling. Over and over again. A violent man on here defined “gender identity” as a “private, personal sense of your own gender”… when saying that otherkin is also “gender identity”.
Basically equating femininity with MAKING you female. Like holy fucking shit. And for the record, a man wearing makeup is not “feminine” or GNC. Femininity is so much more than just makeup and of course men would think that’s all it means. As Sheila Jeffreys titled one of her chapters in Beauty and Misogyny, femininity is the behavior of subordination.
Q-theorists (often calling themselves “tucute”) would also always be denouncing people with sex dysphoria arguing that only people with sex dysphoria can be trans as “truscum”.
“PoC genders” or “non-white genders” being used as a gotcha’. Newsflash, patriarchy manifests itself in different ways across cultures.
The entire idea biological sex is a fucking social construct. Because intersex people.
Something along the lines of “depending on race and class, it’s entirely possible to adopt female narratives”. Adopt female narratives?
A woman arguing that female and male socialization is “adopted”. “Saying you’re socialized according to your genitals is a slippery slope”… I can’t believe I ate that shit up. “Trans women” saying that they were subject to closeted trans woman socialization? Like the entire idea that “trans women” are female socialized. Their explanation was literally “oh yeah we were aware of being male socialized and were uncomfortable with it, thus we knew that female socialization that we witnessed was actually meant for us ” Oh yeah because being treated as if you are superior from fucking birth is so fucking uncomfortable and something male children can recognize and reject from day 1 lmao.
The same woman saying that “the trans women I know don’t say they have dicks, as “dick” is a heavily gendered word. They actually say they have a clit!” So basically her argument was… there are “female gendered” penises and “male gendered” penises. Which ties in with the rape-advocating idea of the “cotton ceiling”.
The fact that I literally never once saw “trans women” attacking or even mentioning how “cis” gay men need to be attracted to vaginas or else they’re a transphobic bigot. No, I literally just saw lesbians being attacked 24/7 for not liking dick. And then those same “trans women” saying things like “lmao we don’t even want to fuck you! We don’t want you filth to have sex with us but you’re still complicit in the murder of trans women because you don’t like dick”, as if that doesn’t sound exactly like a straight guy angry at women not wanting to fuck him. And of course, now it’s radikool to make fun of periods.
The fact that even when I literally asked for help trying to reason out how “trans women” are women without being a woman defined as a feeling or a choice and then being given the unsatisfying answer that “No, of course it’s not a feeling! It’s offensive to “trans women” to say that it’s just a feeling! No, trans women just have magical receptors in their brain that only accept female socialization and reject male socialization from day 1! But no, no, we’re not saying that “gender” is innate!”
A male denying that he was a guy by telling me that “gender was forced upon me so I reject gender”.
Tons of male leftists making violent comments about “TERFs” or simply distancing themselves from male violence by acting like they are above “TERFs”, including one who had no problem liking a “TERF”’s selfies until she along with other women spoke against another male leftist for saying something along the lines of “if you agree with this TERF, you can go choke on big fat horse cock”.
I also saw many indirect claims that “TERF"s and “SWERF"s lie about rape. The way they implied it was insidious then, but clear as day to me now. They’d say things that basically amounted to saying “TERFs lie about being raped by trans women” and “SWERFs lie about sex trafficking”, all in a way that looked radikool.
And this quote comes to mind:
“I am grateful that the idea of “living as a woman” really doesn’t signify for me anymore. I’m an adult human female, so I’m a woman. If I’m breathing, I’m living as a woman. Even though I have/have had sex dysphoria. Even though I am “gender nonconforming” and wouldn’t paint a “femininity” target on myself the way I used to, if you paid me. Even though I am an outlier among females in some profound ways. Even though I have passed as male. Nothing I do or feel can ever make me not a woman. Once that would have sounded like the worst kind of trap, but it turns out that knowledge is crucial to taking the power out of all forms of gender obsession for good. Being able to somatize this knowledge has fundamentally altered my relationship to even my sex dysphoria.”— Early Detransition = Hyper-vulnerability to Sex Role Stereotypes (via redressalert)
I don’t even know how long it was, but I think it was 2 years of me just repeating the mantra “trans women are women” in my head to ignore all this shit… Until I finally decided to see reality.
I used to think genderist/q-theorist bullshit was minor enough to ignore, but then I remembered that people who write and agree with this bullshit online also exist offline. That’s why as a freshman in high school I overheard a teenage girl talking about how she wasn’t a girl because something about the “gender binary”- I don’t recall what she said very well, but I remember thinking about what she said. Bullshit trans ideology is also the reason my freshman molecular biology teacher “taught” the class about “brain sex” (”male and female brains are wired differently”, “you can have a male body but a female brain”) because he saw the same bullshit on the extremely popular YouTube channel SciShow (I saw that particular video, it was also equating femininity with being a woman) and why the girl who sits next to me in history class says she’s not a girl or a boy just because she’s GNC and thinks feminine = female. And just reading the blogs of teenage girls like me literally saying they’re something along the lines of “masc-agender flux but identify as gay so I gotta stick with calling myself a boy” talk about how they’re scared and uncomfortable because they’ve taken the lie so far that they literally use the men’s bathrooms…
I’ve seen multiple sides of genderist/q-theorist Hell. There’s the ones whose bullshit I see deconstructed often, you know the whole “gender identity is a feeling/brain sex/mental state/woman = feminine” and then there’s the other side of the coin, which is pretty much the same thing, but dressed up in leftist language. At first, I believed in the former, but for a long time I was duped by the latter, which I now view as more dangerous. Like, the faux radical q-theorists sound agreeable enough at first. They assert that yes, male and female socialization exists and that “gender identity” is an offensive idea, but then they start getting into bullshit by making up crap like “trans woman socialization is when you realize that male socialization is misdirected at you and you’re uncomfortable with it and thus you’re indirectly female socialized” and “biological sex is a social construct with no firm basis in reality because intersex people exist, so you’re not actually directly socialized from birth according to your perceived sex”. Same snakes, different faces. Like especially with the bullshit idea of “trans woman socialization is when you know female socialization is meant for you”, it’s literally just “brain sex” dressed up in different language because it implies there’s something innate about being female other than you know, being fucking female by sex that you simply “realize” or “discover” some day. That’s why I was duped for so long.
As a 16 year old girl, I know this is dangerous of me to put out there. I know that no male would ever receive the flak/harassment that’s coming my way on this. It’s actually a little funny, in a disgusting way. I could go on and on but this is long enough.
We believe and we hold our beliefs to be true and sacred until the day we discover that we were duped. The end of belief is a challenging moment. You feel lonely, unconnected, with nothing to hang on to. Your life becomes empty and aimless. You curse the day doubt entered your mind but you cannot undo the damage. You need to find a new direction for your life, something new to hang your hope on to continue living. And most of the time that thing is you. At that junction in life you will need to believe in yourself to continue living.
Bangambiki Habyarimana, “The Great Pearl of Wisdom”
Hello sweetheart! What in your opinion are dupes or closest dupes to charlotte tilbury magic cream? CT is sadly still unavailable in my country. Also what do you think about Bobbi Brown vitamin enriched face base? Have a great day ahead😘
Hi babydoll💋yes there are a few dupes:
•PURE super grape day cream
•SKINeffect active day fave cream
•FORMULA day care night cream for normal/dry skin
See if any of them work for you 💓
I adore the Bobbi Brown vitamin enriched face base! It’s so hydrating (perfect for cooler weather), it has a rich texture and doesn’t leave the skin feeling greasy xx
I was selling 16 royal crowns on a day when Hats were the premium item (600k bells each)
— I’mma elaborate more LOL:
I duplicated the crowns and royal crowns by going to my bro’s village a couple times XD When you go to sell them, you won’t be able to sell a whole inventory-ful though, cause your pockets ain’t big enough to hold the profits T____T
(If you are open to duping/duplicating items) I recommend selling 2 crowns and 1 royal crown at a time cause that adds up to 1.6 mil (full invo of money bags)
YES I’M A CHEATER! * 7 * //
I’m so close to getting the 100 mil item from the bank huehue u )) —
How to dupe/duplicate items
What you’ll need: You’ll need two 3DS and two copies of New Leaf (or grab a pal who will help you), AND
be able to visit each other’s towns via internet (not local — well I’m not sure if local works)
2 ROLES: Host = person who opens the town gates. Doesn’t have to do anything except wait for you, the duplicator, to drop items. And then end the multiplayer session~
Duper = you’re ‘super duper’ huhu~~ the person who holds the items for duplicating
STEPS: ( 1 ) Duper, fill your invo (up to 16 items) AND mailbag (up to 10 bonus item slots) with the items you wanna duplicate.
( 2 ) Go visit your friend’s town when you have your items ready (You should best friend your Host, or talk with them on skype or in person to coordinate this~ XD) (note: choose ‘visit a faraway town’)
( 3 ) Once the Duper arrives in the Host’s town, they should drop all the items on the ground.
( 4 ) Duper, tell the Host when you are ready to go/finished dropping.
( 5 ) Host, press the START button and choose “end multiplayer session”
( 6 ) NOW DUPER, this is the tricky part!!! You have to flick your wireless switch on the right side of your 3DS at the right time. So, your screen will say “Looks like it’s time to go” then it will black out and show the jiggling train WOO and the saving dialog-box shows up
It will say “Saving, Do not touch the (power button)” FOCUS ON THE CIRCLE OF DOTS
When the saving circle is making its first rotation, you gotta flick the switch when the BLUE dot below is highlighted.
( 10 - 11 o’clock position )
I flick it with my thumb cause its easiest XD
Then a notice with Mr. Resetti will appear and you just click ok (now you can flick your wireless switch ON again) and then the Duper will be back in their town.
Duper, open your invo and see if you still got the items. If you do, then that’s awesome, cause it means you have a copy of the items and your Host has a copy of them on the ground in their town!
If all your items are gone, then it means you mis-timed the flick and your items are still in your pal’s town. You can ask them to grab it all and visit your town and try the duplication trick as well. Or go back to their town, grab your items, and then go home and stop for the day. XD GOOD LUCK!
My last Valentine’s Day tutorial is up on the Crown Brush UK YouTube channel!
It’s a completely affordable look, featuring all Crown Brush products and brushes.
This is a Romantic looking makeup, with subtle colours and a chocolate winged liner. All very soft but still so beautiful.
Using their ‘Under Exposed’ eyeshadow palette, which is one of 3 palettes that are fantastic dupes for the Urban Decay Naked palettes, I created a soft bronzed smokey eye with a understated fresh pink lip.
I also used lashes from Lash Boutique which are super affordable!
Do you have any dupes for the Stila stay all day eyeliner? I have heard it is great, but $20 is just a little too much.
The Stila liquid eyeliner is definitely fantastic. It’s a felt tip liner that is easy to apply and doesn’t smear or smudge. For a much lower price (try $3!) you can get a very similar liner… the ELF Waterproof Eyeliner Pen. Same style of applicator (just a tad bit shorter) and a very nice formula.
Left: ELF Waterproof Eyeliner Pen, $3 [Found Here] Right: Stila Stay All Day Liquid Eyeliner, $20 [Found Here]
When my brother and I were little, we went through a phase of wanting a puppy. For weeks we begged our parents, but they always had plenty of reasons why we couldn’t get one: it won’t like the cats, it’ll make a mess, it’ll destroy the house, it needs constant care, etc.
Eventually, our nagging wore them down, and they offered a compromise: “We can get a puppy, but first you need to show us that you care. For one month, you need to make your beds, do your chores, and get your homework done early WITHOUT us having to ask you.”
It was certainly going to be a challenge, almost impossible, but we wanted a puppy, so we put everything we had into accomplishing these tasks.
At the end of the month, with beaming pride, Andrew and I sat down to dinner and announced that the month was over! We had done it!
Mom and dad looked surprised. One of them spoke, “We aren’t getting a puppy. I’m not cleaning up shit every day.”
We were livid. We’d been duped! Cheated! It was outrageous. It was unfair.
But as I look back, I’m thankful that my parents had the backbone to make that kind of tough decision. A puppy would’ve created havoc in our home.
Sometimes, America, it’s important to put your foot down and say enough is enough.